Exception Noted

Book Review

2011-04-19T16:24:00.000-07:00

The Sacred Text: Excavating the Texts, Explaining the Interpretations, and Engaging the Theologies of the Christian Scriptures. Edited by Michael Bird and Michael Pahl, Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias. 2010, xv + 265 pp., $114.00.

This book is the seventh in the Gorgias Précis Portfolios. These portfolios are collections of essays in conference or Festschrift (a collection of essays or learned papers contributed by a number of people to honor an eminent scholar) but united around a common theme. Gorgias Press is an independent academic publisher of books and journals covering several areas related to religious studies, the world of ancient western Asia, classics, and Middle Eastern studies. These publications are peer reviewed before acceptance and utilize electronic files in the publication process to ensure that titles will not go out of print. The limited print distribution explains something about the cost of the volume.

This particular collection of essays is the combined effort of twelve contributors. One of the twelve, Michael Pahl served as co-editor with Michael Bird. Its preface places a significant value on Christians discussing “in truly fresh ways about the nature, purposes, and function of Scripture.” (p. xii) This preference for “fresh ways” proves to be indicative of some of the more innovative discussions in the book. As a collection, perhaps by design, there is very little continuity or common agreement as to specific terms or definitions. The overall framework as described by the editors seems more artificial than accurate. There is no glossary but a modest index; each chapter includes a helpful list of recommended books for additional research. The format is extensively footnoted.

The Introduction (by Michael Bird, Ph.D., Queensland) states an admirable goal for the book to provide “brief introductions” to complex issues including:

Excavating the Texts, or the formation of the Christian canon in the context of the ancient church:

1 The Septuagint as Scripture in the Early Church - Karen H. Jobes (Ph.D., Westminster Seminary), Professor of New Testament Greek and Exegesis at Wheaton College and Graduate School.

            2 Scripture in the Second Century - Tomas Bokedal (Th.D., Lund), Lecturer in       New Testament at King’s College, University of Aberdeen, U.K.

            3 Scripture and Tradition: Seeking a Middle Path - Michael W. Pahl (Ph.D., Birmingham) Pastor at Lendrum Mennonite Brethren Church, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

          4 Scripture and Canon - John C. Poirier (D.H.L. Jewish Theological Seminary) Chair of Biblical Studies at Kingswell Theological Seminary in Middletown, OH.

Explaining the Interpretations or the hermeneutical strategies for interpreting the Christian Scriptures:

            5 Scripture and Biblical Criticism - Jamie A. Grant (Ph.D., Gloucestershire) Vice- Principal and Tutor in Biblical Studies at the Highland Theological College in Dingwall, U.K.

            6 Scripture and Theological Exegesis - Thorsten Moritz (Ph.D., Kings’ College London) Professor of Hermeneutics and New Testament at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, MN.

            7 Scripture and Postmodern Epistemology - Robert Shillaker (Ph.D., Open University) Lecturer in Systematic Theology at the Highland Theological College in Dingwall, U.K.

            8 Scripture and New Interpretive Approaches: Feminist & Post-Colonial - Jennifer G. Bird (Ph.D., Vanderbilt) Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies at Greensboro College in Greensboro, NC.

Engaging the Theologies or the theological status and function of Scriptures in various Christian traditions:

            9 Catholic Doctrine on Scripture: Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Interpretation - Brant Pitre (Ph.D., Notre Dame) Professor of Sacred Scriptures at Notre Dame Seminary, New Orleans.

            10 Scripture in Eastern Orthodoxy: Canon, Tradition, and Interpretation -George Kalantzis (Ph.D., Northwestern) Director of Wheaton Center for Early Christian Studies.

            11 Still Sola Scriptura: An Evangelical Perspective on Scripture - James M. Hamilton Jr. (Ph.D., Southern Seminary) Associate Professor of Biblical Theology at Southern Seminary.

            12 The Word as Event: Barth and Bultmann on Scripture - David Congdon (Ph.D., student in systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary in Princeton, NJ.

The book is characterized by careful and competent scholarship in each of the contributors; it also has the distinct advantage of a pervasive irenic tone and an apparent conciliatory attitude toward those who may disagree with a particular viewpoint. In pursuing diversity the editors not only selected a wide-range of theology but also a wide array of scholars, very much representative of the English-speaking world. They are all contemporary scholars.

This volume certainly attains its goal of encouraging greater appreciation for the existence of “sacred texts” as held by Christians. The complexities of the issues discussed and the controversies they engender certainly prompt the reader to pursue these matters that are introduced. The collective work of these scholars, no doubt specialists in their fields, is a commendable undertaking.

This review is prepared for the Evangelical Theological Society, (which view is that “the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs…”) It is illuminating to observe how this concept is approached and applied.

Dr. Michael Bird, lecturer in Systematic Theology at the Bible College of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, writes the Introduction. While acknowledging the “ancient idea of inerrancy” (p.14), he posits a contrast between inerrancy and infallibility; he invokes a carefully nuanced appeal to the veracity of Scripture that should be acceptable to even the Barthian viewpoint. Dr. Bird insists “that the church did create the biblical canon” (p. 9) and “God inspires authors to write Scriptures and inspires the church to make a canon” (p. 10). This will be clearly contradicted by Dr. Hamilton’s statement in chapter eleven that the church did not make the canon but “recognized as inspired” the Protestant canon. This is not hair-splitting. Dr. Hamilton footnotes his comment with Article I of the CSBI (Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy) which states: “We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source” (p. 218).

The Introduction also has one glaring error of syntax. Dr. Bird says, “… there is a closer relationship between ecclesiology and bibliology than is normally underappreciated in Protestant dogmatic.” (p. 9). This should no doubt read “that is normally underappreciated” or “than is normally appreciated.” Correctly understood, Dr. Bird still fails to make a convincing case for any failure of the traditional Protestant view of the relationship between ecclesiology and bibliology. Dr. Bird argues that the Reformers call for sola Scriptura would be better understood as suprema Scriptura and that the traditional Protestant view has been reduce to nuda Scriptura (the bare Scriptures) (p. 11). It may be observed that while Dr. Bird would assent to many of the affirmations of the CSBI, he would not agree with most of the denials as stated by the CSBI. His essay seems to agree with the CSBI Article One affirmation: “We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.” However he would disagree with the corresponding denial: “We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.”

Whether he is right about “the pulpit pounding fundamentalist” (a curious derogation), he does not engage the scholarship of James Boice, Norman L. Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham, original signatories of the CSBI.

Article XIII of the CSBI says, “We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.” Several of these contributors are clearly uncomfortable with the term inerrant. Dr. Robert Shillaker, chapter seven, quotes, if not with total agreement, certainly with admiration, of those who want us to get beyond “cheap inerrancy” (p. 157) and “the too-modern-sounding term inerrancy” (p.158). Shillaker concludes that somehow the Bible uses “truth” and readers should in some manner “expect something similar as Scripture is read” (p. 158). Something similar to truth is to be expected.

Dr. Jennifer Bird, in chapter eight, says that reading “the words of humans that reflect cultural biases can be mistaken for the word of God” (p.173). Dr. Bird engages 1 Peter 2:18 – 3:16 and finds the text as written to fall seriously short of egalitarian ideals. She does not question if egalitarian ideals are possibly wrong or inadequate, but rather says the text must be liberated from its cultural biases so “the life-stealing aspects” of the Bible would be removed and “the life-giving words [may] speak unencumbered for themselves” (p. 173).

In chapter nine, Dr. Brant Pitre, couches the Roman Catholic view of inerrancy within orthodox terms while vitiating the principle with the demand that Sacred Tradition “which is also the word of God,” (p. 194) be held as equal to Scripture. Dr. Pitre anticipates non-Catholic readers finding that view “problematic” but adopts an incarnational and ecclesial hermeneutic, elevating Catholic doctrine as promulgated by the living Magesterium (read current Pope and a synod of Bishops) above the Bible.

In an interesting, but unconvincing argument, Dr. Michael Pahl, in chapter three, presents a novel “middle path” between Sola Scriptura and Sacred Tradition (p.63). He observes the debate has become Scripture versus Tradition and he would frame the discussion as Apostolic-Kerygmatic Tradition. His search for the heart of the gospel is commendable but he does not explain any kind of authority that such a kerygma would have or how it would come to possess it. His thesis would not satisfy the Catholic demand for the role of the Magesterium and would weaken the Protestant view of Sola Scriptura. His conclusion seems to beg his question.

Of course, these views reflect the very diversity the editors desired to present. The contributors’ credentials and current employment are included in this review to give some context to their viewpoints.

There are some stellar contributions:

In Chapter one, Dr. Karen Jobes provides a succinct introduction to the Septuagint. She summarizes its origin, its use in the New Testament with specific attention to Isaiah, the Psalms and the Minor Prophets. She concludes with an evaluation of the proper appreciation of the Masoretic text in relation to the Septuagint.

In chapter five, Dr. Jamie Grant offers a superb brief history of modern Biblical Criticism and an essential introduction to the canonical approach of Brevard Childs. Grant offers a warning that “scholars throughout many generations have been guilty of a degree of intellectual arrogance” (p. 116) and encourages all to approach the Scriptures “with an attitude of appropriate humility” (p. 118). He echoes a valuable sentiment from the preface of the CSBI: “We offer this Statement in a spirit, not of contention, but of humility and love, which we purpose by God's grace to maintain in any future dialogue arising out of what we have said. We gladly acknowledge that many who deny the inerrancy of Scripture do not display the consequences of this denial in the rest of their belief and behavior, and we are conscious that we who confess this doctrine often deny it in life by failing to bring our thoughts and deeds, our traditions and habits, into true subjection to the divine Word.”

Dr. George Kalantzis, in chapter ten, provides a clear comparison and contrast of the bibliology of Eastern Orthodoxy with both Roman Catholic and Protestant perspectives. There are no magisterium and communion-formative Confessions in Eastern Orthodoxy. There are few commentaries. Kalantzis identifies a synergeia between Orthodoxy and Orthopraxy. Even the canon is not considered a closed issue; “it is firm but not rigid” (p. 202). This, in part, leads Kalantzis to conclude that “though Orthodox theology formally teaches a high view of Scripture, Orthodox praxis manifests a low use of Scripture” (p. 212). True of some Protestants as well.

In chapter eleven, Dr. James Hamilton, writing from the evangelical perspective, states clearly and confidently that the sixty-six books of the canon are inspired and inerrant. Hamilton deftly presents the witness of the Old Testament to its own canonicity and the New Testament evidence of the Old Testament canon. He deals with the New Testament canon, surveying the traditional views and then making the case from Scripture’s “self-authentication” (p. 235). He acknowledges the standard objections to the evangelical view and at one point he gently chides critics with the observation that “a remarkable amount of confidence is necessary to declare the Bible to be in error” (p. 238). Dr. Hamilton argues, “the evangelical view of Scriptures is derived from the Bible alone… Rather than being a philosophical or theological construct, the evangelical doctrine of Scripture arises inductively from the text of Scripture itself.” (pp. 216-217). This view is irreconcilable with the Roman Catholic, the Greek Orthodox, the Barthian, the post-modern and Feminist/Post-colonial viewpoints espoused elsewhere in this book under review. It is also at odds with any “middle path” of compromise between Catholicism and Protestantism.

In chapter twelve, Dr. David Congdon, in a very astute essay, identifies the commonalities of Barth and Bultman on the Scriptures as potential events that “must become God’s Word” (p.245). He writes with considerable skill, comparing and contrasting Barth and Bultman, and makes the case that their core views of Scripture were not dissimilar but his conclusion as to their value for moving beyond that perspective is somewhat overstated.

Overall this book does not serve well as an introduction precisely because of the disparate viewpoints espoused. It would be more useful if the alliterative title, Excavating, Explaining and Engaging, was presented from each of the various viewpoints; perhaps a counterpoint or rebuttal format would enhance the book in a utilitarian way. As is, it would be too advanced for most undergraduate students and too elementary for most graduate students, except perhaps as a collateral reading. Unfortunately, the cost would prove impractical as a collateral reading in most settings. More seriously, many chapters in this book are less than subtle attacks on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. To any evangelicals who think this issue was resolved in the last century, this book is a clear challenge to that opinion. Dr. Albert Mohler (in the Fall, 2010 issue of Southern Seminary Magazine) calls it the “Fifty Years’ War”. Dr. Mohler concluded his essay saying, “The rejection of biblical inerrancy is bound up with a view of God that is, in the end, fatal for Christian orthodoxy. We are entering a new phase in the battle over the Bible’s truthfulness and authority. We should at least be thankful for the undisguised arguments coming from the opponents of biblical inerrancy, even as we ready, once again, to make clear where their arguments lead.” Article Five of the CSBI’s opening statement warned, “The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.”

With the clear exceptions noted previously, much of this book, The Sacred Text, is a clear effort to reject biblical inerrancy or at least to limit or disregard it; this effort resurrects old views (couched as “fresh ways”) of truth “contrary to the Bible’s own.”

David Pitman

Temple Baptist College, Cincinnati, OH

I've Learned to Wait for Christmas

2010-12-24T08:40:00.000-08:00

I’ve learned to wait for Christmas

As it comes around each year.

Still with anticipation

As the time draws ever near.

The child-like joys I loved the most,

Once held in my young heart

Have passed first to my children

And then to a “grander” part.

I once had worried Jesus

Might resent my gifts received

But I learned they’re all from Him

Since in Him I believed.

I wouldn’t want to miss it

The family gathered ‘round.

The carols sung by many voices

What a sweet angelic sound!

I’ve learned to wait for Christmas

And miss it when it’s gone.

But I'm glad the Christ of Christmas

Is with me all year long.

by D. Pitman

Christmas 2010

A Memorial to a Friend

2010-11-19T04:23:00.000-08:00

Gentle voice, gentle words, a gentleman.

Thoughtful friend and neighbor kind,

Ever ready to lend a hand,

These are the things that come to mind.

Stalwart and sure in the House of God.

Knew how to pray and stand for right,

Knew the Shepherd's staff and rod,

Knew to walk in the Savior's light.

Husband, Father, Grandfather, great.

Son and brother, so much and yet more.

Respected, admired, each godly trait

A path you walked that reached Heaven's shore.

Farewell for now! My Helper, My Brother!

By faith I trust we will meet again.

So glad we still love one another,

So glad I can say you are my friend.

We Can Do Better

2010-10-16T17:17:00.000-07:00

It was inevitable I guess that the down-grade of Christianity would eventually spiral into what can be called for lack of a better term: "Christian" Pornography. Please understand that it is decidedly unChristian but since it finds its promoters and participants among those who emphatically insist that they are Christians and who also insist that they are some of the best Christians, what else can we call it?

John MacArthur has confronted this issue more eloquently than I could hope. But I do want to say something. MacArthur is the only national voice, the only prominent voice that I am aware of, who is speaking specifically in warning about this. Perhaps others are speaking against it as well. I would be delighted to hear about them.

The chief proponent of this pornography has been Mark Driscoll. Most prominent evangelicals either say little or nothing because of Driscoll's rock star status; or they agree with him about it; others, I am sure, have adopted a "greater good" rationalization. Many young evangelicals have made him into a near idol and they emulate everything he says and does.

Well, I am sure that the scruffy, bad boy image that Driscoll cultivates plays well to the crowd looking for a way to slap a thin veneer on the very behavior that is emphatically condemned in the Bible. It is not Driscoll that grieves me so much. It is the near silence from men who I thought were mature enough to see this for what it is and to rebuke it as they should. Some will say that he has "toned it down." Not nearly enough. I must say that much of the admiration directed at Driscoll is characteristically the stuff of "The Emperor's New Clothes."

Brett McCracken has sounded an alarm about the failure of this methodology even from a practical standpoint. Perhaps that will alert some who are unwilling or unable to oppose this garbage simply because it is wrong.

I have a precious, godly wife, three daughters living for God, four grand-daughters learning about God and a son in whom I am well-pleased; I will not have them encounter this perversion of Biblical Christianity and think I do not speak and stand against it.

The gospel deserves better than this. I do not believe that Christ died so "Christian" juvenile delinquents can wallow in this kind of filth. Grace overcomes this depravity; it does not turn it into a marketing device.

Bonhoeffer: A Brief Review by Dr. David Pitman

2010-09-17T16:42:00.000-07:00

Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy

by Eric Metaxas

It took me some what longer to read the last two chapters of this biography. The sadness of Bonhoeffer's impending execution, set against his expectation that he might be released for further ministry and for his marriage, was written eloquently and effectively. I now think I know Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Metaxas handles primary sources as well as any biographer I have ever read. I am persuaded that he separates the man from the myth (and misrepresentations) and yet manages to convey the heroic, yet humble man that Bonhoeffer was.

The larger canvas upon which Bonhoeffer's life is drawn incorporates themes from the sublime to the stupid; from the heights of human aspirations to the depths of human depravity. Theology, culture, politics. family, patriotism, sacrifice - Bonhoeffer's life and death weaves it all into one seamless fabric.

In this book you will find orthodoxy without obstinacy, self-sacrifice without self-pity, and faith without fear. This is now one of my five favorite biographies.

I recommend this book.

Beck, Bifurcation and the Blustery Day

2010-09-02T09:11:00.000-07:00

The reactions to the Beck Rally have been fascinating and foreboding. The political left was predictably appalled by it all. The political right was unpredictably undercut by friendly fire, especially from some of the more erudite evangelicals. This vividly illustrates how zealous some are to protect the gospel of Jesus Christ. I commend them and I count myself among them.

Dr. Russell Moore, whom I greatly admire, warned, "It would be a tragedy to get the right president, the right Congress, and the wrong Christ. That's a very bad trade-off." I agree; what a horrible trade that would be. Beck's Mormonism has many alarmed that he is using politics to advance the cause of the Mormon cult and Mormon false doctrine; hence deceiving many to accept or even to become Mormons. In the most recent Presidential campaign some were concerned about Senator Obama's religion: is he a Muslim? does the Rev. Wright represent Obama's Christianity? Legitimate questions still lingering.

Having been a political observer now for many years, I am not surprised by the controversy. What cost Al Smith the Presidency in 1928 was still an issue in 1960. Kennedy was elected by the narrowest of margins. Part of his baggage was his Catholicism. Clinton/Gore in 1992 made much of their membership in Southern Baptist Churches (not sure where their letters are now); it must have helped them some. But honestly, Ross Perot triangulated the conservative vote and was very much a factor. I have since forgiven the SBC.

Dr. Jerry Falwell was forming his Moral Majority in the late 1970's, and his odd couple blending of co-belligerents - Catholics, Jews, Christians (and Mormons) delighted many conservatives. Some labeled Dr, Falwell a king-maker and perhaps he was. I always thought Reagan had the great political fortune to run against the most incompetent President in the second half of the 20th century; but I could be wrong about that. Falwell's Liberty University (affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention) hosted Beck (affiliated with the Mormons) as its commencement speaker this year and very few evangelicals protested. At least I heard very little about it.

As a young pastor in 1979, I preached some warnings about the slippery slope of ecumenism, one sermon was titled Why I Cannot Join the Moral Majority. I took some grief over that. I was young, very young; later on two former Falwell insiders (Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson) wrote Blinded by Might and they agreed with me (that 's the way I remember it and I am telling the story.) Good men disagree now about signing The Manhattan Declaration: for example, Albert Mohler says yes; Alistair Begg says no.

My warning about the Beck factor is simple: Be careful with the "evangelical" anxiety over Beck, (some of which I share). Avoid the logical fallacy of bifurcation. Bifurcation is a false dilemma, when someone is asked to choose between two options when there is at least one other option available. I reluctantly say that Dr. Moore's warning, though well-intentioned, falls into this fallacy. Sharing Beck's political views does not mean I must convert to Mormonism.

Some evangelicals may suffer from a genetic disorder known as YDD. My Papa called them yeller dog Democrats i.e., they would vote for a yellow dog if it was a Democrat. I am sure there are blue tick hound Republicans, too. I will be kind and observe that some of these YDD cases are recessive genes but they can assert themselves at odd times. Be warned that some of these evangelicals do not share consistent conservative political views; that makes them more likely to criticize Beck. They have the right and the duty to do so. They have freedom of speech and freedom of religion (and come to think of it, so does Beck.)

Christians in the political arena nearly always (I want to say always, but that would be a logical fallacy) must act as co-belligerents with some whose religion is antithetical to ours. Political choices are nearly always the lesser of two evils. Christians in a representative Republic must participate; I know it is not easy.

What about the Blustery Day? Well, I just like Winnie the Pooh and threw that in for free.

No, it does have some connection because Christians are warned not to be tossed about by every wind of doctrine, When political winds are blowing you had better hold on tight to the anchor of God's inerrant, infallible Word.

Presidential Doctrines

2010-09-01T10:19:00.000-07:00

Monroe Doctrine:

Guaranteed Freedom for Nations in the Western Hemisphere, or "America Helps Her Neighbors."

Truman Doctrine:

"America helps those who resist Communist Aggression."

Eisenhower Doctrine:

"America helps those who resist Communist Aggression, sometimes, in some places."

Kennedy Doctrine:

"America will defend any friend and aggravate our foes."

Nixon Doctrine:

"America will help any friend, or any foe for that matter."

Carter Doctrine:

"America will boycott the Olympics if you hurt our feelings."

Reagan Doctrine:

"America will defend any friend and defeat any foe."

Bush (41) Doctrine:

"America will do whatever it takes... up to a point."

Clinton Doctrine:

"America will do ... whatever, as long as it is pointless."

Bush (43) Doctrine:

"America will talk tough and back it up."

Obama Doctrine (explained last evening):

"America will find it tough to talk but we can always back up."

(with apologies to Bush 43) or:

"Walk politely and carry a big purse."

(with apologies to TR)

Old, Young Earther

2010-08-25T18:58:00.000-07:00

I would be classified as a "Young Earth Creationist." I understand the Biblical record to reveal a 6 day(of 24 hours each) Creation. I am persuaded that the unbiased, scientific evidence observable today corroborates this record. I do not consider theistic evolution, day age theories, gap theories and such like to have any merit.

I have been a young earth Creationist now for nearly 50 years; that makes me an old young earther. As a teenager I read Morris and Whitcomb's Genesis Flood. I heard Morris speak back in the early 70's. His clear, Bible-based, scientifically valid presentations blew the opposition arguments out of the water (pun intended). When I attended college, I became a disciple of Dr. Gail Terrell, a PhD scientist extraordinaire. How many times I heard his lectures; how many questions I asked him! How well he taught me.

From time to time I challenge some evangelicals who mock young earth creation. Their ignorance is matched only by their arrogance. They find it easy to ignore me. I had to smile when Dr. Al Mohler stepped into this arena.

It did sadden me though that they attacked Dr. Mohler's integrity. Shame on those whose logic is so flawed that must try to distract us with ad hominem insults that tell us more about them than about their target. I am amused that some may think Dr. Mohler unequal to the task, intellectually inferior or academically unprepared. I suspect that they were ill-advised to get into a war of words with this man. He is as smart as they think they are.

Church and State: Mosque and Church

2010-08-22T04:21:00.000-07:00

As do many others I have strong opinions about the building of a mosque near Ground Zero. I have read the various arguments for and against; not surprisingly they ran the gamut on the political and the religious spectrum of viewpoint.

I have a pastor friend who served in NYC before, during and after 9/11. For some years he lived in an apartment overlooking Ground Zero. We visited there and saw the site just a few months after the attack. His view is that the mosque should not be built. I trust his judgment enough to defer on his wisdom alone.

There are other voices, of course. One of my friends insists that it is a matter of first amendment issues - religious liberty trumps our "bias" against Islam - he thinks; and he makes a good case. It would be a stronger case if Islam had no mosques in Manhattan or they were being discriminated against, or persecuted here in America as Jews or Christians are treated in Muslim countries.

When I learned of this news story, I was suddenly reminded that political posturing is often just so much noise. How does this religious liberty issue fail to make the national news until now?

I realize I do not know the whole story about this conflict; but apparently there is no urgency. So my remedy for the controversy about the mosque is to delay it for several years, appoint some committees to study this issue, maybe have some Congressional hearings, appoint a Presidential Commission. Surely the Greek Orthodox deserves to be built (actually re-built) first. Perhaps we could wait until the War on Terror has been won or at least until Islam publicly and profusely apologizes for its militant "wing." I am confident that Islam ("a religion of peace") will not mind demonstrating patience.

Everybody has one

2010-08-15T18:21:00.000-07:00

This is a good example of why truth is often counter-intuitive to, or at least unexpected by, the masses. I live in a culture intoxicated with opinion polls. From politicians to pastors we misuse the ones that reflect our views and abuse the ones that reject them. If we disagree with a poll, we become brave and label our self a statesman (if a politician) or a prophet (if a pastor.) If we agree, we get over-confident and call our self a man of the people (if a politician) or a man of Issachar *(if a pastor.)

I think the political process has been eviscerated by the 24 hour opinion polls as news cycle. Churches have been encapsulated by the seeker sensitive methodological models.

If you want the answer to a math question, asking 100 people does not necessarily provide a trustworthy answer. Include the toddlers and you may get an interesting array of opinions. The correct answer is a fact. We could do with a lot more facts and a few less feelings.

Please feel out the survey below to tell me how you feel about this.

Just kidding.

* I Chronicles 12: 32: Of Issachar, men who had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do,

Never Too Late?

2010-08-13T05:03:00.000-07:00

We have all seen the inspirational stories of the septuagenarian who goes back to college or high school and completes the program; then there is the fellow who searches and finds his childhood sweetheart. Opportunity does not knock once we are told; rather it sits on our doorstep and trips us every morning as we leave.

There is some truth in all that. But I see another permutation on those possibilities. Sometimes we spend too much time trying to re-connect, re-discover or re-invent ourselves. Of necessity the inspirational stories do not mention the elderly lady who bankrupts herself with student loan debt and fails to graduate and dies penniless and unfulfilled. They do not usually tell about the fellow who breaks up his marriage to go looking for the girl of his dreams only to find out it is a nightmare.

I mean to say that if you are late and miss the bus maybe you just need to take the next one, or walk, or call a taxi. I do not see that as a sadness nor as an excuse for tardiness ( I hate being late.) Sometimes unfinished business demands to be completed; sometimes to do so is just a waste of time and talent.

I told you I was a contrarian.

Exceptions

2010-08-12T13:21:00.000-07:00

"The exception makes the rule." Or so I have heard. Whether by nature or nurture I have often noticed that I often incline to observe the contrary facts to positions being stated or read. This may derive from a contrary spirit and yet it may also reveal that often we speak in generalizations and ambiguities. Thus, I am often moved to contradiction, sometimes silently. Sometimes, to be fair, the subject is so large that no single discussion could cover every facet. Sometimes I am just wrong. I would like for this blog to help me with this. At best I would like it to reveal logical fallacies, and with astute readership, even my own logical fallacies. At worst, it may only reveal that on many matters we may have to agree to disagree.